Tonight’s Agenda
Recap/Results
All times approximate
6:40 PM
What have we been doing?
Tonight’s Purpose
Overlay Demonstration
Scenario Descriptions
Scenario and Focus Stations
Post-Station Scenario Rating
Wrap-up
7:00 PM - 8:00 PM
8:05 PM – 8:30 PM
Who is with us?
Did you attend the February 6th meeting?
1. Yes
2. No
What is your gender?
1. Male
2. Female
Which age group are you in?
1. Less than 18
2. 18-29
3. 30-39
4. 40-49
5. 50-59
6. 60+
How did you learn about this meeting?
1. Word of Mouth
2. Franklin Favorite
3. Radio Announcement
4. Chamber of Commerce Publication/Event
5. Our Pride Makes Progress Committee
6. Rotary Club Meeting
7. Other
In which group do you consider yourself?
1. I live and work in Simpson County.
2. I live in Simpson County and work outside Simpson County.
3. I live in Simpson County and I am a stay at home parent.
4. I live in Simpson County and I am retired.
5. I live outside Simpson County and work in Simpson County.
6. I live and work outside Simpson County.
7. Other
How long have you lived in Simpson County?
1. Less than 5 years
2. 5-20 years
3. More than 20 years
4. I am not a Simpson County Resident
How would you describe where you live?
1. Downtown
2. Subdivision
3. On a farm
4. Rural, not on a farm
5. Other
Which category BEST describes your interest in this
project?
1. Interested Citizen
2. Agricultural Producer
3. Merchant
4. Community Organization Representative
5. Real Estate Professional
6. Industrial / Manufacturing
7. Elected or Appointed Public Official
8. Other
Diverse growth options that respect historic & small town feel
Comprehensive recreation plan
identification of
issues and needs
February 6
Enhance & Preserve visual character in transportation corridors
Biophysical & Human Systems
inventory
Stakeholder participation
analysis
March 6
Presentation of conceptual designs
preliminary
options & ideas
Stakeholder participation
refinement
April 17
refined
options & ideas
implementation
Presentation of refined ideas
Story Boards
Stakeholders of
Franklin-Simpson County
Recap/Results
Results from last month’s meeting
•12 Sample development designs
•Score from 1 to 10 in terms of
suitability
5 parameters
• Mix of housing types (single-family, townhouses, apartments)
• Mix of land uses (residential, commercial)
• Density
• Walkability (proportion of sidewalks to road widths)
• Road network connectivity
(grid-like street pattern vs. cul de sac’s and collector roads)
Rated Most Suitable
• Mix of housing types: High
• Mix of land uses: High
• Density: Medium
• Walkability: High
• Road connectivity: High
Rated Least Suitable
• Mix of housing types: Medium
• Mix of land uses: High
• Density: Medium
• Walkability: Low
• Road connectivity: High
Your Generalized Rating Results
• Mixed use neighborhoods are as preferable as
typical suburban neighborhoods
• Moderate density is acceptable, but high
density is not preferred
• Road network connectivity is important
How will the model be used?
• It will help generate ideas HOW the design of
development should take form
• Today, we will also discuss WHERE potential
development would/could occur
Diverse growth options that respect historic & small town feel
Comprehensive recreation plan
identification of
issues and needs
February 6
Enhance & Preserve visual character in transportation corridors
Biophysical & Human Systems
inventory
Stakeholder participation
analysis
March 6
Presentation of conceptual designs
preliminary
options & ideas
Stakeholder participation
refinement
April 17
refined
options & ideas
implementation
Presentation of refined ideas
Story Boards
Stakeholders of
Franklin-Simpson County
What have we been up to?
•
•
•
•
Feb. 15 Visit
Feb. 24 Visit
General analysis
Idea generation
Diverse growth options that respect historic & small town feel
Comprehensive recreation plan
identification of
issues and needs
February 6
Enhance & Preserve visual character in transportation corridors
Biophysical & Human Systems
inventory
Stakeholder participation
analysis
March 6
Presentation of conceptual designs
preliminary
options & ideas
Stakeholder participation
refinement
April 17
refined
options & ideas
implementation
Presentation of refined ideas
Story Boards
Stakeholders of
Franklin-Simpson County
Tonight’s Purpose
Projected Population Trends
250,000
Projected Population Changes by Age Group 2000 - 2030
Percent
Sumner
81%
35%
Robertson
74%
30%
Warren
59%
25%
Logan
23%
Allen
67%
2000
2030
27%
200,000
People
150,000
100,000
20%
50,000
Simpson
15%
19,177
0
1990
2000
2010
Year
10%
2020
2030
5%
Source: Kentucky State Data Center
Simpson County
Household Projection
0%
0-19
20-44
45-64
65+
2000-2030
Source: Kentucky State Data Center
1,232 New Households
Tonight’s Purpose
Two Major Questions:
• Where?
• How?
Building a Basic Scenario: How to Answer the Question “WHERE?”
1
2
3
4
School Proximity
US-31W Proximity
Major Roads Proximity
I-65 Interchange Proximity
Bowling Green/Nashville Proximity
Water and Sewer Utilities
Sewer Expansion Potential
Protection of Water Resources
Karst & Environmental Protection
Viewshed Protection
Preservation of Environmental Character
Protection of Prime Farmlands
Encourages Infill Development
Preservation of Historic Identity
Land Use Controls
Development Focused Near Franklin
Development Spread Throughout County
Scenario X
Scenario Description
School Proximity
US-31W Proximity
Major Roads Proximity
I-65 Interchange Proximity
Bowling Green/Nashville Proximity
Water and Sewer Utilities
Sewer Expansion Potential
Protection of Water Resources
Karst & Environmental Protection
Viewshed Protection
Preservation of Environmental Character
Protection of Prime Farmlands
Encourages Infill Development
Preservation of Historic Identity
Land Use Controls
Development Focused Near Franklin
Development Spread Throughout County
Scenario 1
•Assumes that growth will
occur according to
existing zoning
regulations
•Allow one-acre lot
minimums throughout the
county.
School Proximity
US-31W Proximity
Major Roads Proximity
I-65 Interchange Proximity
Bowling Green/Nashville Proximity
Water and Sewer Utilities
Sewer Expansion Potential
Protection of Water Resources
Karst & Environmental Protection
Viewshed Protection
Preservation of Environmental Character
Protection of Prime Farmlands
Encourages Infill Development
Preservation of Historic Identity
Land Use Controls
Development Focused Near Franklin
Development Spread Throughout County
Scenario 2
•Assumes that growth will
occur according to market
forces, in the most
accessible and favorable
areas for development.
School Proximity
US-31W Proximity
Major Roads Proximity
I-65 Interchange Proximity
Bowling Green/Nashville Proximity
Water and Sewer Utilities
Sewer Expansion Potential
Protection of Water Resources
Karst & Environmental Protection
Viewshed Protection
Preservation of Environmental Character
Protection of Prime Farmlands
Encourages Infill Development
Preservation of Historic Identity
Land Use Controls
Development Focused Near Franklin
Development Spread Throughout County
Scenario 3
•Assumed that
development will occur in
areas most suited for
commuting
•Proximity to Bowling
Green & Nashville and
access to I-65.
School Proximity
US-31W Proximity
Major Roads Proximity
I-65 Interchange Proximity
Bowling Green/Nashville Proximity
Water and Sewer Utilities
Sewer Expansion Potential
Protection of Water Resources
Karst & Environmental Protection
Viewshed Protection
Preservation of Environmental Character
Protection of Prime Farmlands
Encourages Infill Development
Preservation of Historic Identity
Land Use Controls
Development Focused Near Franklin
Development Spread Throughout County
Scenario 4
•Focuses growth along the
31W corridor.
•Values easy access to
31W, proximity to the
interstate and easy
expansion of the existing
sewer utilities.
School Proximity
US-31W Proximity
Major Roads Proximity
I-65 Interchange Proximity
Bowling Green/Nashville Proximity
Water and Sewer Utilities
Sewer Expansion Potential
Protection of Water Resources
Karst & Environmental Protection
Viewshed Protection
Preservation of Environmental Character
Protection of Prime Farmlands
Encourages Infill Development
Preservation of Historic Identity
Land Use Controls
Development Focused Near Franklin
Development Spread Throughout County
Scenario 5
•Assumes that new
development will occur
without major infrastructure expansion.
•Existing roads and
utilities provide framework
School Proximity
US-31W Proximity
Major Roads Proximity
I-65 Interchange Proximity
Bowling Green/Nashville Proximity
Protect & preserve water
Water and Sewer Utilities
resources.
Sewer Expansion Potential
Protection of Water Resources
Limit land uses to
Karst & Environmental Protection
maintain strict quality
Viewshed Protection
control.
Preservation of Environmental Character
Protection of Prime Farmlands
Encourages Infill Development
Preservation of Historic Identity
Land Use Controls
Development Focused Near Franklin
Development Spread Throughout County
Scenario 6
School Proximity
US-31W Proximity
Major Roads Proximity
I-65 Interchange Proximity
Bowling Green/Nashville Proximity
Water and Sewer Utilities
Sewer Expansion Potential
Protection of Water Resources
Karst & Environmental Protection
Viewshed Protection
Preservation of Environmental Character
Protection of Prime Farmlands
Encourages Infill Development
Preservation of Historic Identity
Land Use Controls
Development Focused Near Franklin
Development Spread Throughout County
Scenario 7
•Maintain both water
quality and environmental
integrity
•Focuses development
away from sensitive areas
that are easily impacted.
School Proximity
US-31W Proximity
Major Roads Proximity
I-65 Interchange Proximity
Bowling Green/Nashville Proximity
Water and Sewer Utilities
Sewer Expansion Potential
Protection of Water Resources
Karst & Environmental Protection
Viewshed Protection
Preservation of Environmental Character
Protection of Prime Farmlands
Encourages Infill Development
Preservation of Historic Identity
Land Use Controls
Development Focused Near Franklin
Development Spread Throughout County
Scenario 8
•Preserve agricultural
resources for the benefit
of future generations.
•High value is placed on
prime agricultural lands
School Proximity
US-31W Proximity
Major Roads Proximity
I-65 Interchange Proximity
Bowling Green/Nashville Proximity
Valued historic
Water and Sewer Utilities
viewsheds, landmarks,
Sewer Expansion Potential
and the general visual
Protection of Water Resources
character of the county.
Karst & Environmental Protection
Viewshed Protection
Preservation of Environmental Character
Protection of Prime Farmlands
Encourages Infill Development
Preservation of Historic Identity
Land Use Controls
Development Focused Near Franklin
Development Spread Throughout County
Scenario 9
School Proximity
US-31W Proximity
Major Roads Proximity
I-65 Interchange Proximity
Bowling Green/Nashville Proximity
Values visual character of
Water and Sewer Utilities
the landscape and quality
Sewer Expansion Potential
of environment
Protection of Water Resources
Karst & Environmental Protection
Growth is placed in areas
Viewshed Protection
that will have minimal
Preservation of Environmental Character
impacts on these zones
Protection of Prime Farmlands
Encourages Infill Development
Preservation of Historic Identity
Land Use Controls
Development Focused Near Franklin
Development Spread Throughout County
Scenario 10
School Proximity
US-31W Proximity
Major Roads Proximity
I-65 Interchange Proximity
Bowling Green/Nashville Proximity
Water and Sewer Utilities
Sewer Expansion Potential
Protection of Water Resources
Karst & Environmental Protection
Viewshed Protection
Preservation of Environmental Character
Protection of Prime Farmlands
Encourages Infill Development
Preservation of Historic Identity
Land Use Controls
Development Focused Near Franklin
Development Spread Throughout County
Scenario 11
•Protect the rural
character of the
landscape.
•Critical factors:
Viewsheds along major
corridors, preservation of
existing rural land cover
School Proximity
US-31W Proximity
Major Roads Proximity
I-65 Interchange Proximity
Bowling Green/Nashville Proximity
Water and Sewer Utilities
Sewer Expansion Potential
Protection of Water Resources
Karst & Environmental Protection
Viewshed Protection
Preservation of Environmental Character
Protection of Prime Farmlands
Encourages Infill Development
Preservation of Historic Identity
Land Use Controls
Development Focused Near Franklin
Development Spread Throughout County
Scenario 12
•Assumes strict land use
controls
•New development would
only occur within areas
already developed
Scenario Stations
How?
Entrance
Where?
Comment Sheets
Scenario Stations
How?
Entrance
Where?
45 minutes
Scenario Stations
How?
Entrance
Where?
30 minutes
Scenario Stations
How?
Entrance
Where?
15 minutes
Scenario Stations
How?
Entrance
Where?
Scenario Rating
• Scenario XX is desirable for Franklin-Simpson
County.
1
Strongly
Disagree
10
Strongly
Agree
1
Suitability Guidelines
•Existing 1-acre lot minimums attract
development throughout the county.
•Proximity to local and state roads, I-65
interchanges, major intersections and schools are
valued.
Least
Suitable
Legend
Most
Suitable
Franklin-Simpson County
University of Kentucky
College of Agriculture
Dept. of Landscape Architecture
2
Suitability Guidelines
•Slopes valued for ease of development.
•Soils suitable for septic-systems are desired.
•Proximity to local and state roads, I-65
interchanges, major intersections and schools
attracts growth.
•Drinking water and sanitary sewer system
provide framework for new growth.
•Areas where the sewer system could easily
expand are given greater value.
Least
Suitable
•Fields and forests are easy to develop.
Legend
Most
Suitable
Franklin-Simpson County
University of Kentucky
College of Agriculture
Dept. of Landscape Architecture
3
Suitability Guidelines
•Easy access to nearby metropolitan regions will
attract new growth.
•Proximity to local and state roads, I-65
interchanges, major intersections and schools
attracts growth.
•Drinking water and sanitary sewer system
provide framework for new growth.
•Slopes valued for ease of development.
•Soils suitable for septic-systems are desired.
Least
Suitable
•Areas where the sewer system could easily
expand are given greater value.
Legend
Most
Suitable
Franklin-Simpson County
University of Kentucky
College of Agriculture
Dept. of Landscape Architecture
4
Suitability Guidelines
•Proximity to the US-31 corridor attracts growth.
•Sewer-expansion potential is valued.
•Easy access to Bowling Green and Nashville is
important.
•Proximity to local and state roads, I-65
interchanges, major intersections and schools are
valued.
•Areas where the sewer system could easily
expand are given greater value.
Least
Suitable
Legend
Most
Suitable
Franklin-Simpson County
University of Kentucky
College of Agriculture
Dept. of Landscape Architecture
5
Suitability Guidelines
•Development within areas of existing utility
infrastructure is rated highly.
•Infill development within areas of low, medium
and high intensity development is valued.
•Areas within the existing incorporated boundary
of Franklin are highly suitable for development.
•Proximity to local and state roads, I-65
interchanges, major intersections and schools
attract growth.
Least
Suitable
•Slopes are valued for ease of development.
•Soils suitable for septic-systems are desired.
Legend
Most
Suitable
Franklin-Simpson County
University of Kentucky
College of Agriculture
Dept. of Landscape Architecture
6
Suitability Guidelines
•Drinking water resources shouldn’t be impacted
by new development.
•Groundwater and surface streams are important
resources to protect when planning for new
development.
•Sinkholes, springs, and other karst features are
sensitive to the impacts of new development and
should be avoided.
Least
Suitable
Legend
Most
Suitable
•Limiting the area of impervious surfaces within a
watershed is an important factor in locating new
development.
•Proximity to local and state roads, I-65
interchanges, major intersections and schools
attracts growth.
•Drinking water and sanitary sewer system
provide framework for new growth.
•Slopes valued for ease of development.
•Soils suitable for septic-systems are desired.
•Areas where the sewer system could easily
expand are given greater value, as growth can
have minimized impacts on water resources.
Franklin-Simpson County
University of Kentucky
College of Agriculture
Dept. of Landscape Architecture
7
Suitability Guidelines
•Sensitive environmental areas should be
avoided.
•Existing tracts of continuous farmland
shouldn’t be fragmented by new development.
•Protection of water resources should influence
the locations of new development.
•New growth should be seek to protect karst
features.
Least
Suitable
Legend
Most
Suitable
•Limiting the area of impervious surfaces within
a watershed is an important factor in locating
new development.
•Proximity to local and state roads, I-65
interchanges, major intersections and schools
attracts growth.
•Drinking water and sanitary sewer system
provide framework for new growth.
•Slopes valued for ease of development.
•Soils suitable for septic-systems are desired.
•Areas where the sewer system could easily
expand are given greater value.
Franklin-Simpson County
University of Kentucky
College of Agriculture
Dept. of Landscape Architecture
8
Suitability Guidelines
•Prime agricultural soils are an important
resource that should be protected.
•Existing tracts of continuous farmland shouldn’t
be fragmented by new development.
•Protection of water resources should influence
the locations of new development.
•New growth should be seek to protect karst
features.
Least
Suitable
Legend
Most
Suitable
•Limiting the area of impervious surfaces within a
watershed is an important factor in locating new
development.
•Proximity to local and state roads, I-65
interchanges, major intersections and schools
attracts growth.
•Drinking water and sanitary sewer system
provide framework for new growth.
•Slopes valued for ease of development.
•Soils suitable for septic-systems are desired.
•Areas where the sewer system could easily
expand are given greater value.
Franklin-Simpson County
University of Kentucky
College of Agriculture
Dept. of Landscape Architecture
9
Suitability Guidelines
•Protection of historic viewsheds and landmarks
should influence new development.
•Prime agricultural soils are an important resource
that should be protected.
•Protection of water resources should influence
the locations of new development.
•New growth should be seek to protect karst
features.
Least
Suitable
Legend
Most
Suitable
•Limiting the area of impervious surfaces within a
watershed is an important factor in locating new
development.
•Proximity to local and state roads, I-65
interchanges, major intersections and schools
attracts growth.
•Drinking water and sanitary sewer system
provide framework for new growth.
•Slopes valued for ease of development.
•Soils suitable for septic-systems are desired.
•Areas where the sewer system could easily
expand are given greater value.
Franklin-Simpson County
University of Kentucky
College of Agriculture
Dept. of Landscape Architecture
10
Suitability Guidelines
•Historic places are important resources that
shouldn’t be impacted by new development.
•Protection of historic viewsheds and landmarks
should influence new development.
•Prime agricultural soils are an important resource
that should be protected.
•Protection of water resources should influence
the locations of new development.
•New growth should be seek to protect karst
features.
Least
Suitable
Legend
Most
Suitable
•Limiting the area of impervious surfaces within a
watershed is important to new growth.
•Proximity to local and state roads, I-65
interchanges, major intersections and schools
attracts growth.
•Drinking water and sanitary sewer system
provide framework for new growth.
•Slopes valued for ease of development.
•Soils suitable for septic-systems are desired.
•Areas where the sewer system could easily
expand are given greater value.
Franklin-Simpson County
University of Kentucky
College of Agriculture
Dept. of Landscape Architecture
11
Suitability Guidelines
•Viewsheds along major roads should be
preserved by the placement of future
development.
•Protection of historic areas and landmarks
should influence new development.
•Existing non-developed land cover should be
avoided by new development.
•New growth should be seek to protect karst
features.
Least
Suitable
Legend
Most
Suitable
Franklin-Simpson County
•Proximity to local and state roads, I-65
interchanges, major intersections and schools
attracts growth.
•Drinking water and sanitary sewer system
provide framework for new growth.
•Slopes valued for ease of development.
•Soils suitable for septic-systems are desired.
•Areas where the sewer system could easily
expand are given greater value.
University of Kentucky
College of Agriculture
Dept. of Landscape Architecture
12
Suitability Guidelines
•New development must occur within areas of
growth boundaries around 1008, exit 6 and exit
2.
•Areas not within these boundaries are not suited
for new development.
Least
Suitable
Legend
Most
Suitable
Franklin-Simpson County
University of Kentucky
College of Agriculture
Dept. of Landscape Architecture
Diverse growth options that respect historic & small town feel
Comprehensive recreation plan
identification of
issues and needs
February 6
Enhance & Preserve visual character in transportation corridors
Biophysical & Human Systems
inventory
Stakeholder participation
analysis
March 6
Presentation of conceptual designs
preliminary
options & ideas
Stakeholder participation
refinement
April 17
refined
options & ideas
implementation
Presentation of refined ideas
Story Boards
Stakeholders of
Franklin-Simpson County
Acknowledgements
• The community of Franklin-Simpson Co.
• Our Pride Makes Progress
• United States Environmental Protection Agency
• University of Kentucky
College of Agriculture
Department of Landscape Architecture
Ag. Information Center
Barnhart Fund for Excellence
• Kentucky Transportation Center
• Dr. Bailey, University of Arizona